I beg to differ Fat, and as you and I obviously aren't quite on the same page as it relates to defense spending, and the primary respoinsibility of the Fed vs the good intentions of what the Fed should be doing (largely a right vs left phenomnon), we're gonna have words about this. When you compare the defense budget now to back in WWII, to the domestic spending programs now, vs back in wwII, it's quite staggering the amount of money % wise we no longer apply to defense, all the while tending to ignore that defense is one of the PRIMARY Federal reasons for being.
And obviously we tend to disagree to the extent of how much, under Reagan, defense spending went back up (from the egregiously low levels imparted by Carter), which helped in turn bring about an end to the Cold war.
I'm not advocating increasing the defense budget (though as I've said, being it's one of THE primary responsibilities of the Fed, I wouldn't have a problem with it), I am gonna be acutely critical of any attempts to Carter-ize it, making us significantly weaker, and as Professor accurately referenced as well, put many out of a job, that would have to require re-training somewhere else, perhaps not even able to do so within the military.
BAD idea, in every way shape or form, if that's Omaba's plan
I acknowledge your point sirs, and our disagreement. I'm willing to bet an apology that the defense budget of the last 20 years is higher than it was (adjusted for inflation of course) in 1937 (pre WWII) or 1955 (post WWII, beginning of the Cold War). I acknowledge the need for defense, and agree with sensible appropriations for the defense budget. Obviously in WWII, our defense appropriation occupied a large percentage of the GDP, at a time where factories were converted to make armaments and troop supplies, beating our ploughshares into swords if you will. I don't dispute that, WWII was probably the time that we allocated the most money to defense. (I'm saying probably because at this point it's nearing my bedtime and I'm feeling it, and being lazy).
What I have a problem with is a situation like the B-52 Bomber, where a part of that plane is made in every state? Why is there a part made in every state? So that if someone ever tries to take it out of production, there will be a hue and cry about lost jobs. That's how we end up with nightmares like the Osprey helicopter and these wonderful new Coast Guard Cutters that are complete pieces of crap. This is bad enough, but now the Pentagon is outsourcing?The $40 billion contract for new Air Force tankers didn't go to Boeing, but Northrup Grumman. All the pieces of these tankers will be made in Toulouse, France. Final assembly will take place here in the U.S. Doesn't this seem kind of dumb? If France gets mad at the US for some reason (I know, hard to imagine France mad at a country that gave us "Freedom Fries"), is it inconceivable that we'll hear "Ooops, sorry guys, we're having a supply shortage/labor trouble at the moment, we'll get back to you"?
What I took issue with was the Professor's implication that by cutting defense appropriations, we're increasing unemployment, and that unemployment = bad, more than defense spending. It is not one of the primary purposes of the Fed to provide employment for the citizens, no matter the cost. If I misread the Professor's post and assumed something that wasn't there, I apologize in advance. I make plenty of mistakes here and I'm not unaware of that fact. But if what I thought he said is correct, then I stand by my statement.
The National Forest/National Park system are also a primary purpose of the Fed, as are critical infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and ports. All of these systems benefit the Fed in some form, whether it's resource management, trade income, or defense mobility. I don't agree that these systems are less important than defense, though their importance differs from that of the defense mission. Would putting laid off defense workers to work building/repairing roads/bridges through a retraining program be a bad thing? Not in my mind. They all work for the Fed.
